Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a cooperative society, filed a return disclosing nil income after claiming a deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i). The AO disallowed this deduction, stating the society was a cooperative bank hit by Section 80P(4). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the 165-day delay in filing the appeal. It held that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without adjudicating on merits, as per legal precedents. The matter was remanded to the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) was justified in dismissing the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution without deciding on merits? Whether the disallowance of deduction under Section 80P was correct?
Sections Cited
80P(2)(a)(i), 80P(4), 143(3), 250(6), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV, JM
O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, AM These appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the different orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 04.11.2024 and dated 27.11.2024 in to 506/Coch/2025 for Assessment Years (AY) 2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively.
Since identical facts and issues involve in all these appeals, appeals heard together and disposed of vide this common order.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a cooperative society registered under Travancore-Cochin Co-operative Society Act, 1951. The return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 was filed by the appellant co-operative society disclosing nil income after claiming deduction u/s. 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') of Rs. 1,11,90,708/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the ITO, Ward-2, Aluva (for short, 'AO') vide order dated 29/12/2019 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act at a total income of Rs. 1,11,90,708/-. While doing so, the AO disallowed the claim for deduction u/s. 80P by holding that it is a cooperative bank hit by section 80P(4) of the Act.
Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal exparte for non prosecution.
Being aggrieved, the appellant society is in appeal before the Tribunal in the present appeal.
At the outset, we find that there is a delay in filing this appeal by 165 days. The appellant filed a petition seeking condonation of delay stating that the delay had occurred as the appellant was not aware of the order passed by the NFAC u/s. 250 of the Act. Since the averments made in the petition remained uncontroverted by the Service Co-operative Bank Ltd R-83 Departmental Representative, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay of 165 days is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits.
We find that the learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine for non prosecution. As contemplated u/s. 250(6) of the Act the CIT(A) is required to frame points of determination followed by a detailed discussion thereupon before passing the order. It is the settled position of law that the CIT(A), even while disposing of the appeal exparte, is duty bound to dispose of the appeal on merits. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra 297 CTR 614. Therefore, in the light of the above legal position we are of the considered view that the matter requires to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to dispose of the appeal de novo on merits after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stand partly allowed for statistical purposes.